[ultima ratio]

Oh, yeah, "quite mild." Like inviting Saddam's henchman into the Vatican to schmooze, thus undermining Bush's efforts to get Saddam to quit peacefully, or attacking the U.S in Vatican journals, claiming we covet Iraqi oil. "Quite mild", my foot.

But in any case, my opposition to the Pope was not based on his policies towards Iraq--which is why I couldn't care less what the SSPX or the Remnant or anybody else has to say about the issue. My opposition to the New Church is based on faith issues, not Iraq policy.

[Theosis]

Oh, yeah, "quite mild." Like inviting Saddam's henchman into the Vatican to schmooze, thus undermining Bush's efforts to get Saddam to quit peacefully, or attacking the U.S in Vatican journals, claiming we covet Iraqi oil. "Quite mild", my foot.

Is this an invitation do a line-by-line comparison between the Holy Father's statements in opposition to the war and those of the SSPX? If so, let's take a good look at Bishop Williamson's comments, shalt we?

"We come to the third CONDITION for a just war," Williamson writes, "namely that it must be waged with an upright INTENTION. Alas, everybody knows that the United States and Great Britain in particular are far from disinterested where Iraq's oil is concerned, from the Bush family and Vice-President Cheney downwards. Oil in the Caspian basin - a large part of our reason for invading Afghanistan - is apparently proving neither so plentiful nor so easy of access as was at first thought, so it is back to the Persian Gulf for our needs, where Iraq's underground supply is second only to Saudi Arabia's. After decades and decades of US and GB intervention in the Persian Gulf, let us just say that the uprightness of their intentions in the project of this latest attack in the area is somewhat less than clear."

This should be read in the context of his entire letter, which I would encourage anyone to do who thinks that the SSPX was more mild in their opposition to the war than the Holy See.